New Ford Boss 302 Block

**BUSH** · 02-05-2008, 09:00 PM

Im getting some bad feedback on this block. There saying that this new Boss block should not be stroked to a 347 because of the SHORT cylinder walls on the bottom. Machine shops are saying that the piston skirts are coming out way to much and it would be risky even a 331 stroker.

COMMENTS PLEASE!!!

**BIGJOE** · 02-05-2008, 10:02 PM

That is all B---- S----/ The cylinders are all the same as the stock 302 blocks. I built one with a 3.50 stroke, NO PROBLEMS

JOE SHERMAN RACING ENGINES

**87stang** · 02-06-2008, 08:06 AM

Someone's yankin' your chain.

As mentioned by Joe, the cylinder dimensions are the exact same as any other 302. The new BOSS 302 block is very well built for the money.

**carcowboy** · 03-11-2008, 10:09 PM

Cool thanks for the info, found the makings of a stroker kit with clev pitons, should net 10.6 comp, would like a tad more but it will work, now I just need some info from those crazy falcon guys ( boss 302 in a 64 ht who would of thought) thanks Brad

**doug351** · 03-11-2008, 10:23 PM

I think someone is confusing your block with a 289 block. I wouldn't stroke a 289 block due to the shorter cylinder walls, but unless I'm mistaken the only difference in a boss 302 block is two more bolts on each main, and possibly different water passages for the cleveland type heads. Valve to piston clearance might be an issue, but I don't think skirt length is.

**frdnut** · 03-12-2008, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by doug351

I think someone is confusing your block with a 289 block. I wouldn't stroke a 289 block due to the shorter cylinder walls, but unless I'm mistaken the only difference in a boss 302 block is two more bolts on each main, and possibly different water passages for the cleveland type heads. Valve to piston clearance might be an issue, but I don't think skirt length is.

Apparently this is not even true for the majority of 289 blocks..I've heard some very early 289 blocks had slightly shorter cylinder walls but the vast majority are the same as the 302.

**dfree383** · 03-12-2008, 08:43 AM

What Joe Said, Sounds like your Talking to a Chevy guy........

**doug351** · 03-12-2008, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frdnut

Apparently this is not even true for the majority of 289 blocks..I've heard some very early 289 blocks had slightly shorter cylinder walls but the vast majority are the same as the 302.

Well, I guess I learned something. Thanks fordnut, to create the 302, the stroke was lengthened .019, so the cylinder walls were lengthened by that much. It makes sense that Ford would then use the new, longer blocks to continue the 289's, something that didn't occur to me.

**woody1** · 03-12-2008, 06:46 PM

The bores are substantially shorter .300+ shorter

**doug351** · 03-12-2008, 07:48 PM

woody1- I am an idiot in training, but I'm getting a little more edumacated each day. I must rely on the printed word for much of the dribble I spout, and that is only as good as the rube putting it on paper. I can't argue with you because I have no personal knowledge one way or the other. For the mean time, I'll take your word, and logically it makes a lot of sense, because of the talk of skirt slap. The greater the difference, the more that makes sense. (Yet another question to research to verify ). Thanks for the info.